Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 76731 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2000 22:11:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 76720 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2000 22:11:35 -0000 From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <200010012211.SAA25084@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR #6397 To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com In-Reply-To: from "rbb@covalent.net" at Oct 01, 2000 02:52:36 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Well.... Before I do that, I think I'll hack mod_info to better handle it as well. What I _DON'T_ want is it to be in 1.3, but not in 2.0. So if we decide not to have this capability in 2.0, then adding it to 1.3 does seem, at least to me, as worthwhile. rbb@covalent.net wrote: > > > Okay. Like I said, I'm not going to stand in the way. Feel free to > commit. :-) > > Ryan > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > The format of the files is pretty much immaterial. It's whether > > the config parser front-end is directory aware and will > > dive in :) > > > > rbb@covalent.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > It should be almost the exact same change in 2.0 as it is in 1.3. I just > > > know that we keep talking about changing our config system to an XML > > > system, and I want to make sure we keep it possible to easily change > > > config systems. > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, David Reid wrote: > > > > > > > In some ways I agree, but the method that the patch adds is one most admins > > > > already know and use (certainly within the unix world) so it's not a huge > > > > leap and is comfortingly familiar, whereas include directives aren't always > > > > that obvious... > > > > > > > > How much more complex would it make 2.0? I know the config system is > > > > different... > > > > > > > > Just a quick 2p... > > > > > > > > david > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: > > > > To: "Apache (new-httpd)" > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:27 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR #6397 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we bringing our config system too far? I'll put on my Dean hat and > > > > > say that this could be done with the existing config system, by just > > > > > adding an INCLUDE directive, and putting another file in the included > > > > > file. Having spent some time in our config parser, I would prefer to make > > > > > our config system simpler, not more complex. > > > > > > > > > > I am definately -1 (vote not veto) for 1.3 and -0.5 for 2.0. > > > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, David Reid wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Seems like a logical extension. Do we want to do this for 1.3 though? > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for 2.0 > > > > > > +0 for 1.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > david > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's my suggested patch for PR #6397. It's a bit more in keeping > > > > with > > > > > > > current coding, and maybe a bit more vocal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Index: src/CHANGES > > > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > > > RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/CHANGES,v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > ___ > > > > > Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org > > > > > 406 29th St. > > > > > San Francisco, CA 94131 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > > Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org > > > 406 29th St. > > > San Francisco, CA 94131 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > -- > > =========================================================================== > > Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ > > "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??" > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org > 406 29th St. > San Francisco, CA 94131 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"